Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evolution of ERP Systems in The Cloud: A Study On System Updates
Evolution of ERP Systems in The Cloud: A Study On System Updates
net/publication/325566497
CITATIONS READS
11 1,699
2 authors, including:
Moutaz Haddara
Kristiania University College
57 PUBLICATIONS 513 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Call for Papers: Special issue at Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems on Enterprise Systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Moutaz Haddara on 05 June 2018.
Abstract: Cloud-based enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems emerged around the new
millennium, and since then there has been a lack of research regarding the evolution and update
processes of these systems. From the users’ perspective, updates in a traditional on-premise
ERP system are carried at their own request; while cloud-based ERPs are compulsory updated.
Through an established ERP lifecycle framework, this study investigates how the process of updates
is conducted in a cloud ERP context, from both the users’ and vendors’ perspectives. A multiple case
study was conducted in Norway at 10 client organizations, as well as a cloud ERP vendor. Our main
findings suggest that the vendor and the users view the process of updates differently. The main
challenges with the process of updates from the users’ perspective are the size and date of the updates,
lack of information and communication during the process, and extinction of certain functionalities.
Yet, the main advantages are that all system users will always have the same version of the system,
users do not need to spend time on updating the system and paying attention to the ERP market,
which leads to more focus on their core competences instead.
1. Introduction
Heraclitus once said, “The only thing that is constant is change”. In line, enterprise resource planning
(ERP) system implementations have changed dramatically since the emergence of cloud-based ERP systems.
Esteves and Pastor [1] argue that change as such, seems to be the foremost fact associated with ERP
systems. Cloud-based ERP systems transformed the way systems are offered, acquired, implemented, used,
maintained, evolve, and even retire. The emergence of cloud computing technologies started around the
year 2000, and since, ERP systems and database servers started to move into the cloud [2]. While there have
been many studies on cloud-ERP, however, there is still lack of research on ERP post-implementation issues
in general [3], and evolution and updates in cloud-based ERP systems in particular [3–5].
ERP systems need to be updated regularly in order to fix bugs, tighten security, extend current
functionalities or modules [6], convene market/legal regulations, and to update processes and meet
the constantly evolving organizations [7]. However, in contrast to on-premise ERP, cloud ERP users
are not anymore in control of the updates/upgrades and maintenance decisions, so maintenance and
update decisions and efforts are solely triggered and conducted on chosen dates by ERP vendors [8].
In an on-premise ERP system context, the upgrades of the system are normally triggered by a request
from the software users. The vendor informs the users that a new version of the system is available,
and then the users can decide whether to buy and implement it [9]. An on-premise ERP system upgrade
is seen as a complex and resource consuming task [9]. If an organization decides to implement the
update, they will need a dedicated team, which requires time, resources, and skills [6]. These reasons
may explain why several organizations using an on-premise ERP system abstain to conduct major
upgrades to their systems and continue to use an outdated version until they are forced to update
it or retire it. Organizations that have adopted a cloud-based ERP system, experience that the ERP
system is updated automatically on certain planned dates, regardless of their preferences, without the
need for an internal skilled team, and commonly without additional costs [10]. Hence, in a cloud ERP
system, the client is not in control of the updates, as the vendor is the sole entity in charge of the ERP
system update decisions. As the updates are made automatically, client organizations can potentially
interpret them as forceful, as systems are updated without their consent.
The ERP lifecycle framework developed by Esteves and Pastor [1] represents the lifetime of
an on-premise ERP system. One of the phases with paramount importance during the lifetime
of an ERP system in organizations is the evolution phase. Activities that are fulfilled during the
evolution phase are typically updates and upgrades of the system, additional training and user skill
and capacity building, and the continuous business improvements [1], which matches the process
of updates explored in this study. In addition, through adopting the ERP lifecycle framework by
Esteves & Pastor [1], the evolution phase will be analyzed according to four related issues, also called
dimensions: change management, people, process and product. Through these dimensions, this study
attempts to explore and answer the following main question:
• What are the organizational and contextual factors affected by the forced updates within the
evolution phase of cloud-based ERP systems?
In order to answer the above question, several sub-questions also need to be investigated. A list
of the sub-questions is provided below.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: a literature review and theoretical background are
presented in Section 2. Research methodology and target cases are presented in Section 3. Section 4
highlights the main findings, followed by a discussion of the main findings in Section 5. Section 6
provides an overview of the study limitations. Finally, our conclusions and recommendations for
future research are presented in Section 7.
on behalf of its client users. In current literature, cloud-based ERP systems are gaining increased
attention from researchers. Since the emergence of cloud-based ERP systems, the majority of ERP
system implementations have been in the cloud [11]. The emergence of the cloud service model
gives the client the opportunity to get on-demand network access and to share a bundle of resources.
These resources can include networks, servers, data storage, applications (e.g., ERP), and others [11].
The most common type of cloud-based ERP delivery models, is the software as a service (SaaS)
model [12,13]. SaaS eliminates the need to physically install and run the server-side applications on the
customer’s own premises, and eliminates the need for back-end hardware and data centers required to
run the system [14], which in turn simplifies the application’s maintenance and support operations.
This makes it possible for small organizations to take advantage of ERP systems, as they do not require
neither the substantial resources nor the skills needed for a successful on-premise implementation [8].
According to Herbert Nathan and Co., the Norwegian market is covered by more than 30 vendors
and close to 40 different solutions and systems [16]. Notable differences between them evolve around
technology (on-premise vs. cloud-based), use of partners, business areas, multi-country use and
support [16]. Aberdeen group believes that the trend towards the implementation of cloud-ERP
solutions will continue predominantly [17]. To grab this momentum, almost all the major vendors in
the ERP market are now offering their systems under the SaaS model. In Norway, cloud-based ERP
has generally seen a rapid and wide acceptance [16].
Dimensions
• Product: product is about the hardware and software changes that are implemented during
updates. There are no proper guidelines or standards for ERP maintenance and update
Systems 2018, 6, 22 4 of 26
preparations [5]. Even if there is not much literature regarding how a cloud-based ERP system
is updated [5], however, the topic has been briefly discussed by few researchers. For example,
Juell-Skielse and Enquist [12] state that the cloud ERP vendors upgrade their software regularly.
There is no literature at this time on the ideal frequency of updates for an ERP system, as the
areas of cloud ERP maintenance and upgrades are understudied as compared to other ERP
implementation phases [3,8]. However, Calvert and Seddon [7] have conducted research on
the consequence of updates in an on-premise context, and they suggest that updates typically
cause a decline in both individual and organizational capacity for a certain period afterwards.
In addition, organizations will need to undertake extensive user re-training efforts to correspond
with the system upgrade [7]. This matches the findings of another study, which argues that client
organizations will most likely experience ripple effects after updates [18]. However, if the vendor
has thoroughly conducted tests prior to an update, the client organizations would largely be
shielded from these negative effects [18]. An overview of the issues discussed in literature in
relation to updating cloud-based ERP system is provided below:
As seen in the above list, one of the main advantages of cloud-based ERP updates is that they
are free of charge. There are several reasons why the vendor should invest time and recourses in
updating the system, even when it is free for users as technology updates are inescapable process
with dealing with any man-made creation utilized for productive gain [7]. Therefore, vendors should
update the ERP system regularly to allow their customer organizations to constantly evolve and
optimize their business processes, and improve decision-making [7]. Frequency of updates however,
is still an unanswered question in cloud ERP literature.
• People: This dimension refers to the users of the system, and their way of developing skills within
it, also called ERP training. If a user has good skills and much knowledge regarding the system,
it makes it possible for the user to become more effective and competitive, and a decrease in costs
will occur. In order to continually be able to be more efficient, the ERP system needs to be updated
with smarter functionality. In this case, the users of the system, the people, need to learn how to
use the new functionalities to take advantage of them, and therefore ERP training could become
relevant. Training is outlined as what enhances and facilitates the user’s capability to use the ERP
application [15]. The importance of ongoing (or continuous training) after the ERP system has
been implemented, has not been widely addressed in the academic arena [7,20]. Hence, there is
also very little research to assess the implications of continuous ERP upgrades with regard to ERP
training needs [7]. However, the importance of training before and during the implementation
phase has been well documented in earlier research [7,20,21]. ERP training is an important and
relevant topic in literature, as it is one of the most important critical success factors (CSF) identified
in ERP implementations [4,6,15,21]. Therefore, organizations have to prioritize training to be able
to enhance the skills of their employees, and to make it easier for users to change roles within the
organization [7]. If the users of the system spend time on training, they can more easily understand
Systems 2018, 6, 22 5 of 26
real-life events. A case study is thus a revealing method when one has not previously studied the same
kind of problem formulation [26]. One potential strength of case study research, is the possibility to
develop a deeper understanding of the complexity of the case and a phenomenon [28]. Case studies
are among the most suitable and common qualitative methods adopted in information systems (IS)
research [27]. Thus, this study has employed an explorative multiple case study research design [26,28].
The advantage with a multiple case study design is that it helps the researcher to learn as much as
possible about the phenomena that is under investigation [28]. It also enables the researchers to get
insights about how the use and perception of the phenomena is experienced across the different target
cases. In addition, multiple case study findings could provide a better overview and build a more solid
foundation for analytical results than from a single case study [28], and can enable cross-case analysis.
In order to elucidate knowledge and have a deeper understanding of the research topic from both
perspectives, the first author conducted a total of 18 qualitative semi-structured interviews at the ERP’s
users and vendor organizations. Fifteen interviews were conducted with Xledger users, and three
interviews were conducted at the vendor. The data gathering process was conducted over a period of
five weeks where the interviews were evenly distributed over the period. Two iterations of interviews
were conducted. The first two weeks were the first iteration, and the last three weeks were the last
iteration. The reason for these two iterations was because of the opportunity to listen to the interviews
in the first iteration and improve the interview guide to better fit the research if necessary. The data
gathered represent a snapshot of today’s process of updates in Xledger from the users’ and vendor’s
point of view. The main focus in the interviews was on the users’ thoughts, feelings and experiences
about the process.
The data gathering process was conducted over a period of five weeks where the interviews were
evenly distributed over the period. Two iterations of interviews were conducted. The first two weeks were
the first iteration, and the last three weeks were the last iteration. The reason for these two iterations was
because of the opportunity to listen to the interviews in the first iteration in order to improve the interview
guide if necessary, before conducting iteration two. The data gathered represent a snapshot of today’s
process of updates in Xledger from the users’ and vendors’ point of views. The main focus in the interviews
was the users’ thoughts, feelings and experiences about the process. As the study examines the present
circumstances, based on the current opportunities and constraints the research type is can be considered
static [26]. The length of the interviews varied from 25 min to 43 min.
theoretical coding [32], in which the categories were predefined and coded, and in other cases they
emerged from the data.
4. Findings
In this section, we present our main research findings in detail. In addition, an overview and
summary of the findings are provided in Table 2.
be a crisis”. Even companies with users abroad has not been negatively affected by the time of the update.
“It prompts very clear when you log into the system, when the downtime is expected. I have never received
any complaint from our offices in either the United States or Singapore that there has ever been a problem
with the time” (Consultant manager, Narve). On the other hand, other users pointed out that the date the
updates are published is, or could be critical for their business. “It would be very nice if they avoid updating
the system close to deadlines that we face in accounting, like VAT termination. That is because when they
update the system, there have been some small bugs that change critical functionalities for us, and that
creates major problems” (Financial consultant, Thor). “When it comes to the date, if I answer on behalf
of our accountants, sometimes they place updates in connection with, for example, a VAT term and such
things, and things like that create frustrations” (System consultant, Idun). If Xledger updates the system,
and there are errors that affects the accountants, they could in worst case get fines from public authorities.
“You can say that they implement the updates when it suits Xledger, and not when it suits the accountants.
Accountants have deadlines to deal with, whether it’s payroll, VAT reporting, payment of taxes, assembly
task, or what it may be, and if you implement an update shortly against such a date, and there’s something
wrong, it can be quite fatal, because we cannot deliver to public authorities or something like that, and now
they have started with giving you fines for that” (IT manager, Orm). “Last time, the update was the 8 April,
and the 10 April was the deadline of delivering VAT” (Accountant, Thor).
Balder). Due to the lack of an information system consultant at Thor, they feel that it is difficult to have
an influence. “That update happens if you like it or not. So, you just have to accept that. As you do not
have so much information about the course of development, it is a bit difficult to have an influence on
choices that are made”. The CEO at Loke said that “I feel that we have the opportunity to influence
Xledger, at the same time as I do not feel like we actually influence anything. It is mainly the founders
that decides what is implemented and not. We have been so long in this game that we know how it
works and try to influence whenever we can”. The business manager at Loke said that, “Yes, we have
suggested some improvements that have been taken into account. Unfortunately, it is easy to forget
what you have got that you requested, because then you are happy. It is much easier to remember
what you suggested in 2008 that you still have not got”. Even if users have the possibility to have
an influence, it does not necessarily mean that they feel heard, so that was the next question they were
asked. Once again, the answerers were split: 8/15 said yes, 3/15 said no, and 4/15 where mixed:
both yes and no. “Right after we went live Xledger was very responsive, now it is more difficult to
get through.” (CFO, Sleipner). “Yes, but it is a fight. Sometimes things happen, and sometimes they
do not” (Senior consultant, Loke). “Yes, I have a good dialogue with Xledger” (IT director, Balder).
“No, we are not heard. I feel heard and prioritized if I talk to the CEO directly. I do not know if the
other employees do not want to listen, or if they have been told not to” (Business manager, Loke).
an update, they complete important tasks prior to an update. “I do not really plan my day around
an update, I just run important processes like payroll and stuff” (Accountant, Thor). Those who did
not clear their schedule prior to the update, were prepared for working overtime instead. “Normally,
I do not clear my schedule after an update, I think that is something Xledger should have control
over. But, I have got some surprises before, so then I just have to adjust my days and work overtime”
(Deputy director, Heimdall).
and only 7 informants confirmed that they read the (update) release notes. In addition, only 8 out of 15
stated that they conduct post update testing.
you, changes do not really help in a positive direction” (Senoir consultant, Loke). “Totally, it is really
annoying, but as long as I can figure it out I actually think it is a bit fun” (Accountant, Thor).
The users were thereafter asked if they felt that collogues and users are willing to change their work
processes. Mostly, they answered “it really depends on the person”. “Some users are used to work with
Visma, so there are used to do things in a different way, and think that everything was better before.
Others are positive and look forward to work more productive” (System consultant, Idun). “People are
creatures of habit. Often users acquire a certain way of working with the system when they start using
it, and as the years have gone by it might would have save both costs and time. But that requires that
the user and their organization is willing to use both time and resources on that. But I know users in the
entire specter from those who never changes their work processes, as they are happy with the way they are,
and do not see the changes as improvements, and those who change them immediately. I think that smaller
organizations tend to be the first type” (Senior consultant, Loke).
prioritize time on reading the release notes, they are pretty boring and there is not much stuff that is
relevant for them, maybe just a small sentence” (Consultant 3, Xledger).
The first challenge the users mentioned was that some release notes contain too much information.
“We take time to look through the release notes, they are quite complementary, but the load of
information is too big” (IT director, Balder). The release notes are published as a pop-up in the system,
which is shown when you first log on to the system after an update. “When you log into the system
you normally have a task to complete, so you do not have time to sit down and read the release notes”
(IT director, Balder). The majority of the users feel that it is hard to understand, so understanding
what changes has been done is challenging. “It contains a lot of information and it is very technical.
So, it tells what has been done, but very little how it can be used. So, it is up to us to interpret and
understand it. Even if you have been working in the system for almost 10 years, you might not
understand the range of a small change made in the system” (CEO, Loke). As this CEO also mentioned
here, is that many feel that the release notes are not written for them to understand. “It would be
a good idea for Xledger to be aware of the audience when they disclose what has happened in the
release notes. We are not just IT people and developers, this is the accounting industry, and we have
a different way of seeing and understanding things. It does not seem as if they’ve thought about that at
all” (Financial consultant, Thor). Some users also said that even if they spend time on understanding
changes implemented, its normally not possible to start using it. “You see that they spend some time on
writing the release note, but sometimes I do not think it is explained well enough. 75% of cases where
we try to use new functionality, an email goes to support. ‘No, it’s not launched yet’ or ‘Oh, you have
to do this and this for it to work’” (System consultant, Odin).
I have worked in, this is really high” (Consultant 3, Xledger). So, Consultant 3 at Xledger would start to
provide more information to the end users, if there was something that should be changed. Consultant
3 at Xledger views were discussed with the other employees interviewed. The others agreed that the
information regarding updates could defiantly be enhanced, but the problem is that “you could end
up in a situation where you have promised one thing but fail to deliver. Xledger make an estimate
on what will come in the upcoming update, but the world is a chaotic place, and it is unfortunate to
promise something that do not happen, if we for example make incorrect estimates” (Consultant 1,
Xledger). Consultant 1 at Xledger states that is the main reason why external communication is not
a main focus.
After an update, some users said it was difficult to understand what has been actually
implemented. “The problem is that it just seems like they are just coughing up a bunch of things,
‘Now we’ve changed this and that’ without giving any context and explanation. It is therefore difficult
to make use of the release notes and these webinars. When they come with a new change, it would be
better if they put it in a context. Not only ‘Now you can tap this button’, but we must have a context,
so we can use it” (Financial consultant, Thor).
of” (System consultant, Thor). One reason for the errors, could be that Xledger doesn’t test the functionalities
enough beforehand. “It is a challenge when a functionality do not work after an update. I understand that it
is difficult for Xledger to test the functionality in all possible scenarios before an update, especially because
they start testing in such a short time prior to an update, which I know that they do, that it is impossible for
them to get through everything. They do not have enough resources, maybe they should crowd-source
it” (System consultant, Odin). Almost all users argued that if Xledger had used more time on testing new
functionalities before publishing them in an update, they would avoid this problem.
5. Discussion
This study aimed at exploring and assessing the technological, organizational and contextual
factors affected by the forced updates within the evolution phase of cloud-based ERP systems among
Norwegian organizations. A questionnaire was created with the objective of identifying the issues that
were considered most beneficial and challenging within this context. In this section, we will discuss
the factors that are considered as advantageous and disadvantageous by our informants.
Vendor Users
The date of updates
The dates of the quarterly system updates follow The date the system is updated can crash with
the seasons. important deadlines for accountants.
The number of updates per year
10/15 of the users think that four times a year is
The system is updated four times a year because it
good. The rest of the users think that too much
fits the developers and it works well.
functionalities are implemented in each update.
The opportunity to have an influence
Important existing, and new customers are a part of
Users have split opinions regarding their
the group who influences what are implemented in
opportunity to have an influence. Some users do
an update.Users are supposed to go through
not feel heard through support, so they
support if they have a suggestion or an issue,
communicate with Xledger employees directly
but some directly talk to employees instead,
when they have issues.
which is a routine violation.
Systems 2018, 6, 22 18 of 26
Table 3. Cont.
Vendor Users
Users’ relationship with updates
Users clear their schedule before an update, and
Users have a non-existing relationship to updates those who do not, are usually prepared to work
and do not pay attention towards them. overtime. Users do not know what is coming in
an update, so it is hard for them to prepare.
User training
Few of the users read the release notes. 13/15 had different issues with the release notes.
7/15 users participate in the webinars. The webinars
Users do not participate in webinars. are not about what is coming for the users to prepare,
it is about what has already been done.
Users think that the time they spend on training
14/15 users think that spending time on training
and understanding new functionality are longer
should gain them an advantage.
than the time they would save.
System testing
We test the system in three test cycles that last for A challenge is that Xledger do not spend enough
two weeks before the update. time on testing.
Change management
Users are resistant to change and are not interested Users need to change their work processes due to
in learning new ways of conducting their work. updates, and most think it is okay.
Flow of information
Xledger announces new functionalities that are not
Our main focus is not on external communications,
there before the next update, or not at all. Users are
as we do not want to promise something that is
uncertain regarding what will be implemented in
not implemented.
the future, which they find challenging.
Furthermore, the release notes could be tailored by the roles of the users or divide it by the modules,
but at least it should be put in a context and written by someone with a non-technical background for
users to understand it better.
• The date of updates is sometimes challenging for accountants using the system. A possible
solution is for Xledger to talk to accountants, get informed about their deadlines, and update the
system at a time that not interfere with them.
• The size of the updates is according to half of the users challenging to maintain their effective
way of working. A possible solution is to introduce fewer new functionalities in each update.
• Lack of information about what is going to be implemented in the next update makes it hard for
users to both be prepared, and to have an influence. It is difficult to provide a possible solution for
this problem, as it is a challenge for Xledger to provide this information, as they might promise
a functionality that they will fail to deliver.
• Release notes are written too technical for the users to understand, so the users do not always
understand the meaning of the new functionality as it is not put in a context when presented.
Xledger provides an untailored release note, while the users request a tailored version for them to
better understand it. A possible solution could be to tailor the release notes to the different roles
of the users, or divide it by the modules, put the new functionality in a context and hand over the
job of writing the release note to someone with a non-technical background.
• Some functionalities do not work after updates. A possible solution could be to dedicate more
resources for user testing by, for example, inviting super users or partners to test the system prior
to updates.
Systems 2018, 6, 22 21 of 26
5.2.1. Advantages
According to Duan et al. [11], not being in charge of updates could potentially lead to less
planning and testing activities by the client organizations. However, our findings suggest that users
still have to plan before updates and test if the new functionality actually works. Duan et al. [11]
also state that not being in charge of updates leads to lower costs. The informants also considered
this as a huge advantage, because even though there might be challenges with the updates, they are
free. Another advantage, which was not identified in previous research, is that all users always
have the same and latest version of the system. This means that users do not have to think about
updating the system, like they do in an on-premise ERP system where users tend to typically skip
updates. This leads to users focusing on their core competences as also argued by [12], instead of
paying attention to for example, law changes in the accountancy industry, as these are automatically
implemented in the system by Xledger. In literature, another advantage is that new versions of the
system are regularly published [18], and the updates are more frequent [12]. Most of the users agreed
to that, but at the same time it leads to them being unable to use the system as effectively as before,
as a new update typically means more new things to learn. Frequent updates could therefore also be
interpreted as a disadvantage. Other advantages found include the system always being updated,
which means that the changes that the users need to do after each update is typically smaller than
with an on-premise system that is seldom updated. If users know other users of Xledger in other
organizations, they can share knowledge and information regarding Xledger as they are always on the
same version. A summary of advantages is listed below.
5.2.2. Disadvantages
The findings also show that there are some disadvantages when users are not in control of updates.
The first main challenge is the lack of information about what is going to be implemented in the future,
so users are not prepared for the changes, and have to handle them after they are implemented. The lack of
knowledge in relation to future development of the system makes it hard for the users to have a certain
control over the updates. The second main challenge is that the users do not decide when the system is
updated. This is a challenge because after the updates, the system might not work properly, and previous
work processes might have changed. This leads to users either being unable their work or having to spend
time on learning how to do their work in a different way. As accountants have important deadlines to deal
with, they do not have time to do either of those things when an update is published close to a deadline.
They have to deliver documents to the authorities such as the value added tax (VAT) terms, or other things
like payroll, and if they do not deliver these documents in time, they could end up getting a fine from the
authorities or that the employees are not paid for their work. The main disadvantages are therefore:
6. Study Limitations
6.1. Method
One of the disadvantages of qualitative multiple case studies is that they can become increasingly
complex [33]. The amount of data is large, which can make it challenging to identify themes and
patterns, and the data interpretation process is more tied to the researcher(s) than in a quantitative
data analysis [34]. Hence, there is a risk that the researches view of reality would color the experiences
and points made, and that some assumptions may be of a subjective manner, especially when the
researchers have a certain relationship to the study [33] (e.g., Xledger). Thus, the authors of this study
attempted to minimize bias by analyzing the data and identifying the themes independently and
discussing the results together until they reached consensus.
and the theoretical ideas developed. In this context, it is important to note that what users answer
might not always be what they think. In an interview setting, it can be difficult for users to talk about
negative sides of the topic, as it is easier and more socially accepted to talk about positive aspects.
Furthermore, the quotes from the users are translated from Norwegian to English which creates
a problem with the accuracy of what the users actually said. While the transcriptions’ translation was
conducted by only one of the authors, which may weaken the validity of the study, as there exists
a possibility that what have been said during the interviews have been influenced by the researcher’s
subjective perception. However, respondent validation was employed in this research in order to
maintain ‘good practice’. Respondent validation is a process whereby the researcher shares an account
of the findings with the participants (e.g., organizations and interviewees) upon which the research is
based [26]. After the data analysis, an overview of the findings was sent to the relevant participants to
make sure that our understanding matches their statements and opinions.
External validity, which is most relevant for this qualitative study, refers to whether a study can
be generalized beyond the specific research context [26]. In this research, many of the informants were
recommended by Xledger, and therefore might have a closer relationship to Xledger than the average
user. Also, the roles of several of the users were consultants or managers within accounting firms,
which means that they might have different attitudes towards the process of updates than the average
user or users in other contexts. The study can therefore not claim the generalizability of the findings
to other ERP vendors or contexts. Another clear limitation of this study is that it is focused on one
ERP system. A replication of this study with another ERP vendor or the data collection from other
organizations using a different type of cloud-based ERP systems would be preferred in order to test
the generalizability of the findings of this study. External validity is known as being a problem for
qualitative research due to small samples [26], which is why this study attempted to study several
cases and collect data from both users and the vendor.
In general, generalizability and transferability from qualitative research and the case studies
may pose something of a challenge. Especially when there is a small number of informants in some
of the case studies. While there is no recommended number for interviewees in case studies [35]
however, it is usually recommended that the researchers can stop the interviews when they reach
data saturation [28]. In our case, one of the challenges was that we were not able to interview more
than one informant in some organizations. However, the authors can see that the main themes are
reoccurring in the data among the different target cases. The relatively small number of informants
provided in this research may pose a challenge to replicate findings in other contexts [26]. Nonetheless,
some academics have argued that it is feasible to generalize and develop theories from such case
studies [30,36]. Guba and Lincoln [37] argue that ‘thick descriptions’ of case studies could help other
researchers in judging the transferability of their descriptions to their own contexts and lexicons. In this
study, the authors sought to document and describe the context in detail, which may enable researchers
to relate the findings to their domains. As our cases are limited to Norway, however, any general
conclusions must be made with caution. The experience of Xledger ERP updates at our cases could be
then different from that of other contexts.
success. However, research has not been able to keep up with the diffusion, and the lack of relevant
empirical studies are clear. In specific, there has been little research on ERP maintenance, evolution,
and retirement phases in both on-premise and in-cloud ERP contexts. In an in-cloud context,
systems’ clients and users are not in control anymore of the systems updates and evolution processes.
Thus, this study focused on the evolution phase of the ERP lifecycle framework, which for cloud-based
ERP systems involve continuous forced updates of the system. The evolution phase has been analyzed
using the related dimensions: change management and process, people, and product. There is limited
literature about this phase. The continuous and forced updates in the cloud-based ERP context show
that the evolution process is probably longer and more comprehensive for users than in an on-premise
ERP system. Hence, this study explored how the users and vendors feel about and react to the forced
cloud ERP updates at several organizations across various industries.
Cloud-based ERP systems have already been present for almost two decades but are under-researched.
Future research has to grasp and analyze many aspects of these systems. Cloud-based ERP systems are
considered one of the most important trends in the recent years, and updates are an important aspect of the
cloud-based ERP system. Thus, this study was an attempt to contribute to a topic that has several gaps in
literature. Now, as more information about the process of updates in a cloud-based ERP system is presented
in our findings, this could pave the way for more research in the field. For example, our findings suggest
that some users have issues with the frequency of updates. Future studies should do further research on
this topic, to be able to pinpoint what the ideal frequency of cloud-based ERP updates are for different
industries? This research also proposes a new and deeper perspective on the evolution phase in the lifecycle
of cloud-based ERP systems. The aim is to provide practitioners with general guidelines and insights on
how to implement cloud ERP system updates. However, other users’ and vendors’ thoughts and challenges
about the process with cloud-based ERP system need to be further investigated in order to check conformity
or contradictions with our results. In addition, this study did not have space for another aspect of this
topic, which is ‘workarounds’. If the users do not engage in the new changes done in the system, this could
lead to workarounds. It is potentially interesting to investigate if users develop workarounds after changes
in processes after the frequent updates. Finally, in this study, the evolution phase of the ERP lifecycle
framework was the main target of focus. It is equally important to explore cloud-based ERP systems in the
context of the other lifecycle phases.
Author Contributions: M.H. identified the initial research problem, and both authors developed the research
scope, method, and the interview guide. E.B. handled the data collection process and wrote the initial draft of
the paper. Both authors analysed and categorized the collected data. M.H. edited and enhanced the initial draft.
M.H. added the figures and study limitations section, responded to and addressed the anonymous reviewers’
constructive comments and recommendations, and wrote the final version of this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Esteves, J.; Pastor, J. An ERP lifecycle-based research agenda. In Proceedings of the First International
workshop in Enterprise Management and Resource Planning: Methods, Tools and Architectures‚ EMRPS,
Venice, Italy, 25-27 November 1999; pp. 359–371.
2. Peng, G.C.A.; Gala, C. Cloud ERP: A new dilemma to modern organizations? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2014, 54,
22–30. [CrossRef]
3. Kotb, M.T.; Haddara, M.; Kotb, Y.T. Back-propagation artificial neural network for ERP adoption cost
estimation. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2011, 220, 180–187.
4. Elragal, A.; Haddara, M. The Future of ERP Systems: Look backward before moving forward. Procedia Technol.
2012, 5, 21–30. [CrossRef]
5. Ng, C.S.P.; Gable, G.; Chan, T. An ERP maintenance model. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2003.
6. Ha, Y.M.; Ahn, H.J. Factors affecting the performance of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems in the
post-implementation stage. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 1065–1081. [CrossRef]
Systems 2018, 6, 22 25 of 26
7. Calvert, C.; Seddon, P.B. The importance of ongoing ERP training and support. AISeL 2006, 91.
8. Haddara, M.; Fagerstrøm, A.; Mæland, B. Cloud ERP Systems: Anatomy of Adoption Factors and Attitudes.
J. Enterp. Resour. Plan. Stud. 2015, 2015, 22. [CrossRef]
9. Ng, C.S.P.; Chan, T.; Gable, G.G. A client-benefits oriented taxonomy of ERP maintenance. In Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’01), Washington, DC, USA,
7–9 November 2001; p. 528.
10. Arnesen, S. Is cloud ERP solution right for you. Strat. Finance 2013, 95, 45–50.
11. Duan, J.; Faker, P.; Fesak, A.; Stuart, T. Benefits and Drawbacks of Cloud-Based versus Traditional ERP
systems. In Proceedings of the 2012–13 Course on Advanced Resource Planning; 2013; Available online:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31000164/A.Fesak_et_al._Comparing_Cloud-based_
_Hosted__and_On-premises_ERP._SME_aspect._2012.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&
Expires=1527846824&Signature=%2BCsxtGXXh4wrS5IXWBonq7N7yIM%3D&response-content-disposition=
inline%3B%20filename%3DBenefits_and_Drawbacks_of_Cloud-Based_ve.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2018).
12. Juell-Skielse, G.; Enquist, H. Implications of ERP as Service. In Re-Conceptualizing Enterprise Information
Systems; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 129–151.
13. Raihana, G.F.H. Cloud ERP—A solution model. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. Secur. 2012, 2, 76–79.
14. Armbrust, M.; Fox, A.; Griffith, R.; Joseph, A.; Katz, R.; Konwinski, A.; Lee, G.; Patterson, D.; Rabkin, A.
A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 2010, 53, 50–58. [CrossRef]
15. Albadri, F.A.; Abdallah, S. ERP training and evaluation: ERP life-cycle approach to end-users’ characterization
and competency building in the context of an oil and gas company. Ibima Bus. Rev. 2009, 3, 19–26. [CrossRef]
16. Co, H. ERP Systems in Norway 2013; HerbertNathan and Co.: Oslo, Norway, 2013.
17. Castellina, N. SaaS and Cloud ERP Observations: Is Cloud ERP Right For You?;; Aberdeen Group:
Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
18. Claybaugh, C.C.; Ramamurthy, K.; Haseman, W.D. Assimilation of enterprise technology upgrades:
A factor-based study. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2017, 11, 250–283. [CrossRef]
19. Seethamraju, R. Adoption of software as a service (SaaS) enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Inf. Syst. Front. 2015, 17, 475–492. [CrossRef]
20. Haddara, M.; Hetlevik, T. Investigating the Effectiveness of Traditional Support Structures and
Self-organizing Entities within the ERP Shakedown Phase. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 100, 507–516.
[CrossRef]
21. Haddara, M.; Moen, H. User Resistance in ERP Implementation: A Literature Review. Procedia Comput. Sci.
2017, 121, 859–865. [CrossRef]
22. Wheatley, M. ERP training stinks. CIO 2000, 13, 86.
23. Scott, J.E. Post-implementation usability of ERP training manuals: The user’s perspective. Inf. Syst. Manag.
2005, 22, 67–77. [CrossRef]
24. Goel, M.S.; Kiran, R.; Garg, D. Impact of cloud computing on ERP implementations in higher education.
Institutions 2011, 5, 8. [CrossRef]
25. Foster, S.; Hawking, P.; Zhu, C. The human side of ERP implementations: Can change management
really make a difference? In Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems II; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 239–249.
26. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2012.
27. Myers, M.D. Qualitative research in information systems. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 1997, 21, 241–242. [CrossRef]
28. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
29. Fusch, P.I.; Ness, L.R. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual. Rep. 2015, 20, 1408.
30. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [CrossRef]
31. Knafl, K.A.; Webster, D.C.; Benoliel, J.Q.; Morse, J.M. Managing and analyzing qualitative data a description
of tasks, techniques, and materials. West. J. Nurs. Res. 1988, 10, 195–218. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Glaser, B.G. Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2008,
1, 23–38. [CrossRef]
33. Andersen, I. Den Skinbarlige Virkelighed; Samfundslitteratur: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013.
34. Oates, B.J. Researching Information Systems and Computing; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2005.
Systems 2018, 6, 22 26 of 26
35. Baker, S.E.; Edwards, R.; Doidge, M. How Many Qualitative Interviews Is Enough?: Expert Voices and Early
Career Reflections on Sampling and Cases in Qualitative Research; National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM)
Review Paper; NCRM: Southampton, UK, 2012.
36. Flyvbjerg, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
37. Guba, E.; Lincoln, Y. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handb. Qual. Res. 1994, 2, 163–194.
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).